You think it’s biased because it’s using words like “right-wing” and “anti-diversity”? I’ve usually found such terms to be right on the mark, even if some don’t like it pointed out
I assume that "right-wing" and "anti-diversity" are correct labels here, that's not really my problem. It's frankly less about bias, and more about the fact that the Wikipedia article is pretty sparse, and all I could see is the link to Correia's blog.
This is completely disconnected from my own politics, really. I don't need to read articles on how a "right-wing voting campaign got owned at the Hugo awards". That story writes itself. The other side of the story is more interesting.
Comments
You think it’s biased because it’s using words like “right-wing” and “anti-diversity”? I’ve usually found such terms to be right on the mark, even if some don’t like it pointed out
I assume that "right-wing" and "anti-diversity" are correct labels here, that's not really my problem. It's frankly less about bias, and more about the fact that the Wikipedia article is pretty sparse, and all I could see is the link to Correia's blog.
This is completely disconnected from my own politics, really. I don't need to read articles on how a "right-wing voting campaign got owned at the Hugo awards". That story writes itself. The other side of the story is more interesting.
Thanks for explaining your reasoning. That sounds more reasonable than I’d assumed. I stand corrected